I’m glad to have someone taking a harder look at this topic. But I wish there were more people doing it regularly. Plant-science facts are as important as climate-science facts as far as I’m concerned, but get a lot less ink (or electrons, I suppose). —Mary

Kloor is not interested in the science or journalism on the issue of GMOs. He consistently pollutes the Internet with false, misleading, and biased information from biased sources. In the past year, he hasn’t published a single article representing the public-health community and public-health concerns of this technology. Instead, he consistently gives the microphone to industrial PR reps of agricultural interests and other junk scientists advocating for industrial GMOs. If Kloor is your idea of good science journalism, you are supportive of blatantly biased journalism, corruption of the media with marketing propaganda, and censorship. —dogctor

Your assessment of Kloor is right on. He plays a vital role in calling other journalists to task when they focus their coverage on a tiny fraction of fringe scientists, rather than the scientific mainstream and vast majority of scientific research which finds currently approved GMOs safe. We should all hope for better journalism that captures the state of scientific debates (including the weight of evidence on each side) rather than amplifying scary yet discredited findings. —Ramez Naam


More in Letters to the Editor

Letters to the editor

Read More »

The Editors